Poll: Are you religious?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes
54.55%
18 54.55%
No
45.45%
15 45.45%
Total 33 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Are You Religious?
#61
Wow James. You are right. There goes 8 hours of your life. You have put a lot of commendable work and effort into this. I am overwhelmed.

Just a short (wow) summary of your postings re questions:

question: "What does evolution posit?" I would rather answer, what does evolution require in order to be valid? Statistical tests require a probability of 95% or greater to "prove" something. In addition, the theory of evolution requires chance occurring over time to add a massive amount of information.

question: "Is the evidence 100% fabricated? Are the articles all intentionally dishonest? ..."

Statement: I would be interested to see such a demonstration of logical consistency.

Question: What constitutes a "kind", why can one "kind" never change into another "kind" by evolutionary processes, what does classifying by "kind" achieve, etc.?

This is an example of the "any true scotsman" logical fallacy: "if an intellectually honest person accepts said evidence, they must necessarily conclude via Bayesian thinking that common descent via natural selection is a profoundly more logical explanation than "special creation" is."

Now, in response, if you think that it took 8 hours to assemble, it would take me far longer to respond to all points, and in the end it wouldn't change your mind on any of it. It isn't worthwhile. However, I suggest that we just take a single point and chew on that for a while. Do you want to start with information theory, natural selection, the impossibility of macroevolution, why we have journals on evolution, why creationists are not published in them, what is a "kind", how old is the earth, what about radioactive decomposition and assigned ages to rock, what about carbon14, what about geological formations, what about the geologic column, the big bang ...

To save a lot of time. I suggest you find the topic that is the most iron-clad, best wrapped up, most solidly fact-based item ever found. Something that if falsified from the evidence available would cause you to question your worldview. This is not a challenge, just an attempt to make things possible.
Reply
#62
I'm not James, but this video gives a good explanation of the big bang, why it must have happened and why God couldn't have caused it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg
Reply
#63
Admittedly, I didn't watch that video, but I'm wondering how you can argue that it's impossible for an omnipotent being to create/cause something. Seems like a contradiction in terms.
Quote:In Jr. High School, I would take a gummi bear, squeeze its ears into points so it looked like Yoda, and then I would say to it "Eat you, I will!". And of course then I would it eat.
Reply
#64
Quote:Admittedly, I didn't watch that video, but I'm wondering how you can argue that it's impossible for an omnipotent being to create/cause something. Seems like a contradiction in terms.


There was no time before the big bang. It couldn't be created/caused by anything since there was no time for it to be created in.
Reply
#65
What is "time"? Isn't it just something we measure using clocks and atomic particles?

Couldn't it also be possible that, whatever our conception of "existence," it is limited in comparison to the true scope of whatever it is that God/whoever is in charge of?

BTW (and this has always bothered me, and I know I'm not alone), is it really any more unreasonable to suppose that there's a God than there is to assume that this matter simply came from nowhere?
Quote:In Jr. High School, I would take a gummi bear, squeeze its ears into points so it looked like Yoda, and then I would say to it "Eat you, I will!". And of course then I would it eat.
Reply
#66
There is no time before the beginning of time (at least in our universe). That does not mean that there isn't a bigger reality.

Personally, I don't think God is bound by time.
"Bad news, bad news came to me where I sleep / Turn turn turn again" - Bob Dylan
Reply
#67
Quote:There is no time before the beginning of time (at least in our universe). That does not mean that there isn't a bigger reality.

Personally, I don't think God is bound by time.
To elaborate: if God was bound by time, then He could not have existed eternally and thus would not be God by definition. On the other hand, I don't see how the universe could have been bound by time. We are currently diving into waters both sides of this discussion have seen much of, and thus I wanted to explain this somewhat, even though I would have liked to initially respond to some points in the response that required James to steal someone's American keyboard to type out. Maybe I'll get there later.
Reply
#68
OK. How about the Big Bang Theory. What is the current state of affairs?

The Big Bang theory is not without some difficulties. Proponents have to ignore the real measurable evidence in favor of holding onto the theory. What evidence? 1. Missing magnets ... monopoles (north or south only). Particle physicists say they should have been created in the high temperatures of the 'big bang', and, being stable, should still exist, but none have been found. 2. The problem of flatness, or 'infinitely fine tuning'. The rate of expansion of the universe is very finely balanced with universal density of matter, such that the universe neither collapses, nor rapidly flys apart. As time goes by, any deviation from 'flatness' greatly increases, so it had to be even more finely 'flat' at the time of creation. There is no restriction of the initial value of either factor, so this is an impossible co-incidence. 2a. The invention of 'inflation'. Because flatness is a problem, the story of 'inflation' was developed, wherein the universe went through a temporary period of accelerated expansion. This is accepted without evidence, but there is no information on how it started, and how it ended smoothly. 3. Missing antimatter. Big bang conditions must produce an exact amount of antimatter as there is matter. However, only trace amounts of antimatter exist. 4. Missing Pop III stars. Big Bang accounts for only H, He and Li but can't account for the heavier elements which are assumed to have been produced by stars via nuclear fusion "in the core", then supernovas would "re-distribute" the heavier elements into space. Second and third generation stars (PopII, PopI) would be 'contaminated' with small amts of these heavier elements. If so, then the 'first' formed stars would only contain the original 3 elements. Although searched for, only PopI and PopII stars have been found.

So, physicists and astronomers are now realizing that the big bang model isn't a realistic explanation of how the universe began. In the May 22, 2004, issue of New Scientist, (8 years ago, guys) there appeared an open letter to the scientific community written primarily by secular scientists who challenge the big bang. These scientists pointed out that the copious arbitrary assumptions and the lack of successful big-bang predictions challenge the legitimacy of the model. Among other things, they state:

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory."
Reply
#69
Well, and my inability to fully grasp particle physics may show here, it there's no big bang, then what is your theory for the doppler shifts of EVERY SINGLE STAR AND GALAXY? Either it's an illusion (www.wittywizard.com), or they are moving away. If they are, we need some model to explain why. The logical conclusion is that they were closer before, and at some point were all on top of each other. (This is similar to the conclusion that South America used to be next to Africa -- the pieces fit.)

The big bang is just one model, but I haven't seen a better one yet. Surely inflation and dark energy are weird "patches" to the theory, but they could be true. (I don't really have a problem with dark matter -- it's not really all that dark, it's just not bright enough to be seen. In fact, there may be "dark galaxies", which are lit, but are darker to us than the background brightness, so we can't see them. I remember reading about this years ago in Scientific American.)

I've heard that the probability of detecting a magnetic monopole is something like 1 per year over the entire earth. So, yeah, if we put out detectors for 10000 years, we might get a good sample size to hypothesize whether they exist or not.

I also heard (perhaps incorrectly) that all first generation (PopIII) stars would have blown up by now.

The missing antimatter is in the anti-universe. Where time moves backwards.

As for "flatness", that one is new to me. Just because two numbers are similar, it does not mean they are dependent. I'm 48 years old. The daily paper cost $0.50. These numbers are not dependent on each other in any meaningful way.

As for God being outside time, you can envision the entire "bubble" of our four-dimensional universe being two-dimensional on a tabletop, and God standing over the table, able to tweak whatever he wants, whereever he wants, WHENever he wants. This model is perfectly valid for a big enough God.

And I must say that there are too many things about humans for me to believe they were created "from scratch". We are too much like other animals. Why do we like to be elevated when we sleep? Why do we have tailbones? Why do fetuses have gill slits? Why do some people have a cranial ridge? The list goes on. We are clearly animals, yet there is a ghost in the machine. What happened? And who did it?

(Look up the HAR1 gene to really get your mind going.)
"Bad news, bad news came to me where I sleep / Turn turn turn again" - Bob Dylan
Reply
#70
I think of it this way: everything we believe about science could turn out to be absolutely wrong. That does not prove the existence of God.

Everything anyone believes about higher beings could turn out to be absolutely wrong. That does not prove any given scientific theory.



BTW, given that science has provided measurable results (such as advances in medicine), I tend to side with the scientists, even as they admit that their field is, by definition, filled with uncertainties and theories rather than "facts."
Quote:In Jr. High School, I would take a gummi bear, squeeze its ears into points so it looked like Yoda, and then I would say to it "Eat you, I will!". And of course then I would it eat.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)